Found an "interesting" Board

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2007-09-04 10:27am

If this place had been already found, then please lock the topic, otherwise read on:

I found a board named "Starfleet Jedi". Reading a little through it, I think I got the gist of what people post in it. I was however surprised, to see this on that board:

ttp://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=541 (insert h to use the link)

Either his followers are spreading his rubbish on that board, or the master himself found the time to again peach his religion to the ignorant masses.
Reading through other topics got me results of the same direction.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2007-09-04 10:33am

I saw this website a while ago too. I noticed some odd flaws in their arguments, for instance, someone says that Alderaan had no shield because Alderaan "lighsts up" only along the clouds (even though you can see the area above the oceans light up to) meaning that it was just heat.

Hell, I think someone said something about the CLOUD absorbing some of the superlaser power!

That, and they once tried to claim the ICS is faulty because in the movies, you dont see the Acclamators firing (what is it about Needs to DIRECTLY contradict the movies that they dont understandt?) and because you dont see the guns on the Acclamators.

Seriously, how does this stuff continue?

lord Martiya · Post by **lord Martiya** » 2007-09-04 10:44am

In my country we say: "The Mother of the Idiots is always pregnant". I suppose this stuff continues for it. BTW, sometimes I go on their false Wiki and read something, when I need laughing.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-09-04 11:17am

Yeah, old news.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2007-09-04 11:56am

We've seen some of their braver (and more arrogant) members tromping through here before. They nearly all end up the same way.

lord Martiya · Post by **lord Martiya** » 2007-09-04 12:26pm

I hope you hadn't eat them! They may be poisoning!

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-09-04 05:11pm

Starfleet Jedi is pretty much the new hangout for the refugees from Darkstars failed board and Admiral Newlands old board. 99% of the observations and arguments raised there are taken directly or paraphrased from Darkstars site. In fact the only new info to come to light from that site is the revelation that Darkstars cadre is a bunch of neo-con wackaloons, which can be found in this thread.

lord Martiya · Post by **lord Martiya** » 2007-09-04 05:57pm

Excuse me, but what is a 'neo-con'?

Paradox244 · Post by **Paradox244** » 2007-09-04 05:59pm

Neo-Conservative.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-04 06:00pm

lord Martiya wrote:Excuse me, but what is a 'neo-con'?

Neoconservative, morons who believe it's America's moral imperative to police the world, consequences be damned, and they were right even when they failed because of their own incompetence and instead blame those in opposition to their wars.

lord Martiya · Post by **lord Martiya** » 2007-09-04 06:01pm

Oh. Maybe I can sell them the Moon and their own houses...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-04 07:10pm

It shouldn't come as any surprise that Darkstar followers are neo-cons. Darkstar himself is one too. Neo-conservative thinking prepares you for the kind of "us vs them, truth is a matter of righteousness rather than logic" thinking that pervades his site.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2007-09-04 07:18pm

lord Martiya wrote:Oh. Maybe I can sell them the Moon and their own houses...

Feel free to try but I doubt it'll work. The people over there aren't necessarily abysmally stupid (which would be required for your plot to work), they're in denial. They see the numbers and how those would mean Wars vapourises Trek so they try to find ways to either discard or undermine those numbers.
But at least a few of them actually understand what those numbers mean.

AirshipFanboy · Post by **AirshipFanboy** » 2007-09-04 11:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:It shouldn't come as any surprise that Darkstar followers are neo-cons. Darkstar himself is one too. Neo-conservative thinking prepares you for the kind of "us vs them, truth is a matter of righteousness rather than logic" thinking that pervades his site.

Darkstar is a neo-con? Oh Lord. How did we figure this out?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-04 11:46pm

AirshipFanboy wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It shouldn't come as any surprise that Darkstar followers are neo-cons. Darkstar himself is one too. Neo-conservative thinking prepares you for the kind of "us vs them, truth is a matter of righteousness rather than logic" thinking that pervades his site.
Darkstar is a neo-con? Oh Lord. How did we figure this out?

I got a message from an old friend which contained the following exchange (note: Darkstar is "2046":

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... =6306#6306

2046 wrote:Out of respect for Jedi Master Spock, this must be my last post in the thread. There is simply no way that a person such as myself can possibly be polite to Holocaust-deniers and their intellectual brethren that are active in this thread.

The following post, for instance, is as polite as I can bear to make it after six different edits spaced up to an hour apart.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote: Please tell me this post is a poor attempt at humor.
No. I've seen data formulated, showing that the list of islam fundamentalists terrorists said to be on the planes, and died on these planes... were apparently not on these planes...
So you went to conspiracy nut websites and are sick enough to buy into them? Despite the fact that all reputable sources (and the very sources who gave the initial reports of surviving hijackers) acknowledge mistaken identity regarding common Islamic names?

If they're alive, where are the pictures? Where's the Al-Jazeera interview with that dead-eyed sonofabitch Atta saying "yeah, uh, I'm alive and shit, so WTF?"

You waste time going to those loony sites yet are wholly ignorant of bin Laden's admissions and boasts that he did it? You listen to third-party tinfoil-hat whackaloons and never bother to read up on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who helped bin Laden plan it?

For crying out loud, you just confirmed Wayne Poe's suggestion about your headwear. It's a rare thing for me to agree with Wayne, but by damn you just made it happen. Doesn't that extraordinary event even give you pause?

and had activities (related to sex and alcohol) which didn't seem to fit with the protrait of your traditional AQ nutcase.
Islamic terrorists frequently engage in debauchery, often the night before attacks. They believe their sins will be washed away when they slaughter innocents in suicide attacks.

How is it that you can make some flawlessly logical post on Trek/Wars stuff, then 180 your way on the same topic, and also be so scandalously wrong here? Is your mind really that compartmentalized in regards to where your logic budget goes? Shit, man, if you have so little to go around I'd much rather you spend it on politics and become a esteemed fan of Star Wars than spend it on (some of) your Trek/Wars ideas and be a conspiracy wacko.

Now to Wilga:

And the interpretation of these rules is out of question. The legal opinion has shown that there is consensus about the interpretation of Article 51 UN Charter.
Okay, then . . . so why did we get UN resolution support in kicking Taliban ass? Even France, along with the rest of the European Council, said we were authorized by 1368.

Of course you don't accept that. Your entire position in this thread is based on failing to understand the text of UN resolutions, cherry-picking the parts you want to misunderstand the most, and doing the misunderstanding intentionally by defining terms with absurd narrowness, along with other semantic games.

And the really great part is when you directly ignore the UN in order to do it. I really love that. What next, EU Completism? It would fit the pattern of semantics gamesmanship and lying.

It's no doubt a perfect house of Teutonic BS in your mind, with the rough parts glossed over via your seemingly limitless capacity for intellectual dishonesty on this matter. All it proves, however, is your effete disdain for western civilization and your particular, deranged loathing for all actions of the United States.

the Taliban have said that they would consider to hand over Osama Bin Laden when the U.S. bring forward evidences
Yeah, just like they did in 1998, I'm sure. We've been over that. You've been ignoring my posts. I was quite fond of the naval example, for instance.

It would have been the duty of the U.S. to negotiate with the Taliban before starting a war, the worst and most prohibited act in international affairs.
It was the duty of the Taliban to fight terrorism within its borders, not harbor and support it even after terrorists operating from within Afghanistan perpetrated what is actually the worst act in world affairs.

Kane:

Actually it was US that aided taliban and other religious extremists in Afganistan to fight off the eeeeeevil USSR commies. That sure backfired didn't it. Maybe next time you won't get in the bed with islamists.
But you will won't you? Already giving billions of dollars of military aid to Saudi Arabia which are known to harbor the terrorists.
So you bitch when we kick their asses and you bitch when we don't? You bitch when we attack and you bitch when we pick our battles. Don't you recognize the fact that you're just bitching about the U.S. no matter what it does?

How is this different that US invasion of Panama in 1989 for example?
THEY DECLARED A STATE OF WAR WITH US! They said it existed, so we gave it to them. They were dumbasses, and met the fate of similar dumbasses through recent history.

Oh, and to whoever . . . using a civilian vehicle in wartime support of escaping enemy forces makes it a military target. Doing that in front of a US tank makes the driver f***ing stupid.

To sum up the thread:

1. US soldiers sent abroad, numbering in the many tens of thousands, unfortunately include a handful of criminal decidedly impolite person(s), lefty plants, and other assorted undesirables. Therefore a handful of terrible events have occurred, such as Abu Gharaib, the rapist, and the murderer. Compared to all past wars this is miniscule, and compared to even a civilian population of the same number such things are ridiculous to dwell upon with the pretense of a point.

2. Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the United States and citizens of many countries, by their own statements and admissions. They knowingly and willfully struck at civilian and governmental targets in an effort to foment fear and force US concessions.

3. The War in Afghanistan was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies. More importantly, it was dead right. The Taliban made itself a target by standing with our target at a time when we were not in the best of moods, and they got what was coming to them. There is no rationality in any attempt to claim that our action was unjust or improper, and indeed I cannot escape the suspicion that such claims are evidence of mental illness, brought on by attempting to hold to an impossible philosophy that requires extensive intellectual dishonesty.

4. The War in Iraq was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies of consequence. More importantly, it was dead right. Based on intelligence long known internationally, intel that could not be disproved since Saddam never held properly to the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, the United States removed Saddam from power. His efforts to make the world believe he had nuclear and other WMD facilities, his known willingness to use them, and all that and more mixed with his own terrorist acts (per Wilga) and his known contacts with other terrorist Islamic extremist groups including Al Qaeda, made him a clear and present danger to the United States specifically, and international peace and justice generally.

Besides which, just in general, if you attempt to assassinate a US president, you've gotta know you're gonna get your ass handed to you. I mean, damn. Seriously, dude.

5. Leftist and conspiracist ideals of the sort espoused in this thread have weakened international security. North Korea has a nuke-lette, and successfully blackmailed the world instead of getting its ass kicked. Terror-sponsor Iran, headed by a modern-day Hitler-esque madman, is close to a real nuke. Even broken Russia is resurgent, behaving more and more like the Soviet Union every day as it supports Iran and other similar regimes. Other dictators and madmen are emboldened, and the forces of world evil are uniting.

You want the democracies of the West to stand idly by and invite their destruction from rogue nations, terrorists and their sponsors, and backwards philosophies.

You seek the withdrawal of the United States and its allies from Iraq, guaranteeing a bloodbath of the type seen when American leftists won our withdrawal from Viet Nam. But you don't care, so long as America's nose is bloodied. (That applies to both foreigners and the enemies within.)

You refuse to recognize America's triumphs, even those in your defense, and rejoice at America's failings, even those at your expense.

There is something incredibly twisted about your worldviews. No, not just the irony that you couldn't have them were it not for the people and government of the United States securing your freedoms, but that, for all our failings, for all our fears and doubts, and for all our missteps, the United States has, for the last 70 years at least, done our damnedest to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all we can practically help.

No one's claiming we're perfect, and certainly not me. I'm no huge fan of Bush. And even in the past 70 years this country has done some terrible things, both internationally and within its own borders and society. But we're a damn sight better than every other country that's ever wielded such power, and a helluva lot better than most who couldn't dream of it.

Is that why you hate us? And if those philosophies of life and liberty have made you loathe the United States, what does that say about your philosophy?

Can you feel the stupidity? Here's my favourite quote:

Darkstar wrote:The War in Iraq was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies of consequence.

Unless I've been seriously misinformed about the identity of "2046", Darkstar is not just a neo-con, he's a full-fledged foaming-at-the-mouth neo-con. Of course, his opponent is also a twit, since he's apparently a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but that just tells you about the quality of people on that forum.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2007-09-05 12:19am

Darth Wong wrote:It shouldn't come as any surprise that Darkstar followers are neo-cons. Darkstar himself is one too. Neo-conservative thinking prepares you for the kind of "us vs them, truth is a matter of righteousness rather than logic" thinking that pervades his site.

On a similar note, I think that this blog entry of his:
+http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/2007/05/f ... um-ad.html
is quite revealing regarding his attitude towards science.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-05 12:22am

I love how he adds SDN or Wong into every one of his blogs like everything that's wrong with the world can be laid squarely at the feet of Wong and the denizens of SDN.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2007-09-05 12:32am

OH NO!!!! Im partly responsible for the worlds problems!1!!

(BTW is this Darkstar fellow really THAT bad?)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-05 12:35am

General Schatten wrote:I love how he adds SDN or Wong into every one of his blogs like everything that's wrong with the world can be laid squarely at the feet of Wong and the denizens of SDN.

The most bizarre aspect of it all is the sheer sense of self-importance which permeates his site and his blog. He honestly seems to think that the "Star Wars vs Star Trek" debate is really important, and that his role in it is important as well. There really isn't much difference in the perceived gravitas of his ruminations on real-life politics and his ruminations on Star Wars vs Star Trek.

AirshipFanboy · Post by **AirshipFanboy** » 2007-09-05 12:50am

Well, I'm at a loss for words. He's even more of a doofus than I thought.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-05 01:05am

Darth Ruinus wrote:OH NO!!!! Im partly responsible for the worlds problems!1!!

(BTW is this Darkstar fellow really THAT bad?)

He's told both Leland Chee and Paula Block that they were wrong about the Star Wars and Star Trek Canons, even though Leland is in charge of the Holocron (Where Canon goes) and Paula is head of Star Trek Licensing.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2007-09-05 02:42am

Mange wrote: +http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/2007/05/f ... um-ad.html

Apologies if this is answered elsewhere, but... why is the Hall of Shame visible to registered members only?

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-09-05 08:24am

Xeriar wrote:
Mange wrote: +http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/2007/05/f ... um-ad.html
Apologies if this is answered elsewhere, but... why is the Hall of Shame visible to registered members only?

It's considered a place where SDN's 'dirty laundry' goes, so to speak.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-05 08:59am

Xeriar wrote:
Mange wrote: +http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/2007/05/f ... um-ad.html
Apologies if this is answered elsewhere, but... why is the Hall of Shame visible to registered members only?

A long time ago, a bunch of white supremacists joined up and started spewing their shit all over the board. We created the HoS specially for their bullshit, and it eventually became a dumping ground for various kinds of threads. But really, where does Darkstar get off trying to make an issue out of it? He shut down his entire board when people didn't say what he wanted to hear, for fuck's sake.

harbringer · Post by **harbringer** » 2007-09-05 09:11am

Just a minor point why do these idiots forget about perspective... or do they think they can just gloss over it to make their POV more palatable?? 80 to 90 odd percent of alderan is in view the big "target" ring assumes the planet is larger and round.

The discolouration around the beam spread (there is a definate green glow which wouldnt be a reflected colour or atmospheric colour) also implies that there is something at work other than OMG there cant be a shield.....

sorry I know its obvious

but had to say it..........